1. The Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap518626 against the Defendants’ Plaintiff has an executory power over the Defendants’ claim for retirement allowance.

1. Basic facts

A. In the case of retirement allowance claim filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Gahap518626, “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs the amount of money indicated in the retirement allowance calculation table (attached Form 1), 6% per annum from August 15, 2012 to December 15, 2015, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment” was sentenced on October 27, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. In calculating the amount of withholding tax on each money recorded in the retirement allowance column in the table (attached Form 1) in the above judgment, the Plaintiff calculated the Defendants’ continuous service years applied when calculating the retirement income tax, on the ground that the Defendants entered into a delegation contract with the Defendants on a one-year basis, and calculated the amount of withholding tax as to this portion, contrary to the above judgment.

C. In calculating the amount of withholding tax for the interest in arrears that the Plaintiff ordered payment in another judgment, the Plaintiff considered it as other income under Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act, and calculated the amount of withholding tax for this portion by applying 20% of other income tax rate and 2% of other resident tax.

On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited the amount calculated pursuant to the foregoing (attached Form 2) and the interest for arrears accrued until January 18, 2016, after deducting the amount of withholding tax calculated at the rate of 22% (the same shall apply to the statement in the column of the amount of deduction on the fourth page of the preparatory document dated May 23, 2016) from the income tax calculated at the rate of 22%. Based on this, the Seoul Central District Court decided to suspend compulsory execution on February 22, 2016 with respect to the case of the Seoul Central District Court 2016KaMa92.

E. The Defendants reserved an objection on January 29, 2016 and withdrawn each of the aforementioned deposits.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 11, and 12 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion.